Comment on Lars Syll on ‘On the irrelevance of general equilibrium theory’
Blog-Reference
You [Ezra Davar] ask "Is Input-Output Analysis of Leontief a nonentity?"
As far as it is used as a mathematical device it is not, as far as it abused to illustrate the Walrasian equilibrium of all markets it is. For a formal proof see (2013).
You say "So, our task to change them [the assumptions of general equilibrium] by much more realistic assumptions."
It is not so much a matter of assumptions. Each theory is based on axioms, so we have to move from the obsolete orthodox axiom set to a heterodox axiom set. This is what a Paradigm Shift is all about. Playing with realistic/unrealistic assumptions keeps economists busy without ever leading to worthwhile results.
You ask "What is an alternative?"
I agree with you, Keynes' approach is not an alternative to Walras'. It too suffers from severe methodological deficits. For a formal proof see (2011).
The alternative has already been pointed out by Joan Robinson: Scrap the lot and start again!#1
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
References
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2011). Why Post Keynesianism is Not Yet a Science. SSRN
Working Paper Series, 1966438: 1–20. URL
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2013). Walras’s Law of Markets as Special Case of the
General Period Core Theorem. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2222123: 1–12. URL
#1 For the new formal start with structural axioms and the behavioral propensity function see Wikimedia AXEc137b.